The Queen against Powell and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 1854 |
| Date | 27 January 1854 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 118 E.R. 1183
COURTS OF QUEENS BENCH AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 23 l. J. Q. B. 199; 18 Jur. 771.
the queen against powell and others. Friday, January 27th, 1854. By the governing charter of a corporation, the Community were annually to elect four wardens from the men of the Community.-In fact, for about four hundred years, the election had been made by a court of assistants, who were elected, by the court itself, from the body of the Community. The wardens had always been elected from members of the Community, and generally, but not uniformly, from those who were members of the court of assistants.-Held : 1. That a by-law establishing such a mode of election would be good.-2. That the passing of such a by-law in fact might be presumed from the usage. [S. C. 23 L. J. Q. B. 199; 18 Jur. 771.] Cleasby, in last Term, obtained (in the Bail Court, before Crompton J.) a rule calling on Charles Powell, John Horsley Palmer, Thomas Lane and Thomas Barker, (a)1 The counsel opposing the rule contended that the affidavits in support of the rule failed to shew that the Act had been regularly adopted, according to its provisions and those oi stat. 7 W. 4 & 1 Viet. c. 45. The Court, however, were of opinion that the adoption was shewn by the facts deposed to; and the counsel did not finally persist in the objection. See Regina v. Overseers of Kingswinford, Easter Term, May 8tb, post. '(a)2 Note (a) to Rex v. Greame, 2 A. & E. 618. (b) 2 A. & E. 632. See also Regina v. Justices of Worcestershire, post, p. 477. (a)3 Wightman J, had left the Court. 1184 THE QUEEN V. POWELL S EL. & BL. 378. Esquires, to shew cause why one or more information or informations in the nature of a quo warranto should not be exhibited against them, to shew by what authority they claim to exercise the office [378] of wardens of The Company of Mercers of the city of London : upon the grounds : 1st. That they were illegally chosen or appointed to the said office; 2d. That they were not chosen or appointed by the whole body of the commonalty of the said Company : 3d. That they were chosen or appointed by a limited portion of the Company calling themselves the Court of Assistants. The rule was obtained on the affidavit of the proposed relator, Henry Newnham, a freeman and liveryman of the Company. He deposed that he had discovered and believed that the Company of Mercers was incorporated by a certain ancient Royal Charter, granted by Richard 2, in the 17th year of his reign, and still in force; by which the King granted that the Men of the Mystery of the Mercery of the City of London might have a perpetual community of themselves; and that such community might severally elect and make, from and amongst themselves, four wardens from the Men of the said Community and Mystery, to exercise, regulate and govern the Community and Mystery aforesaid, and all the men, state and affairs of the same for ever. That the said charter was confirmed by charter and letters patent of 3 H. 6 : and furthermore, by his letters patent, the said King Henry 6 granted that the Wardens aud Commonalty of the said Mystery, and their successors, should have a common seal for the sealing and use of the business of the Commonalty ; and that they might be persons able in law to plead and be impleaded. That the said charter and letters were exemplified and confirmed in 4th and 6th Ph. & M., and in 2 Eliz.: and, finally, James the 1st, in the 10th year of his reign, [379] confirmed the whole of the preceding charters, but without any alteration or extension. That, so far as deponent could discover, and verily believed, no charter altering the constitution of the Company was granted to the Company or Mystery, until the charter of 6 C. 2 hereinafter mentioned : and that the enumeration and statement of the charters of the Company agrees in every respect with the statement relating thereto of the commissioners appointed by W. 4 to inquire and report upon the municipal corporations in England and Wales (a): and that no alteration in the constitution of the Company, as deponent could discover and as he believed, was lawfully made by charter or otherwise until the charter of 6 C. 2. That Charles 2, by charter of 6 C. 2, the former charters having been surrendered to the Crown after the judgment in quo warranto against the City of London, granted to the Company a new charter with a different constitution (some particulars of which were stated) ; and that, by stat. 2 W. & M. c. 8 (sess. 1), it was enacted that all the companies of the said City should be restored to their former constitutions, as they lawfully stood at the time of the said judgment given ; and that as well all surrenders, as charters made or granted by Charles 2 or James 2 since the giving of the said judgment, should be null and void to all intents...
To continue reading
Request your trial